Introduction.
Assessing Prime Ministers is difficult because political success depends on the circumstances in which each leader takes office. A Prime Minister who inherits a booming economy faces a very different challenge from one who inherits recession, war, financial crisis or a divided country. Equally, some leaders may be excellent politicians but mediocre administrators, while others may be highly capable administrators but poor political leaders.
With hindsight, however, it is possible to assess the Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher onwards across several dimensions: economic management, public services, foreign affairs, domestic reform, crisis management, political leadership, party management, communication and long-term legacy.
On that basis, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair stand out as the two most consequential Prime Ministers of the period, while John Major and Gordon Brown have arguably improved with hindsight. David Cameron was an effective political leader whose reputation has been overshadowed by Brexit, while Boris Johnson demonstrated extraordinary political ability but struggled with the discipline required to run government. Theresa May, Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer were increasingly constrained by circumstances and their own political difficulties, while Liz Truss’s premiership was simply too short and too damaging to be considered successful. Andy Burnham, having only recently become Prime Minister, remains impossible to judge.
Margaret Thatcher: the transformational Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 at a time when Britain was experiencing serious economic problems, high inflation, industrial unrest and a widespread perception of national decline. Her response was not simply to manage those problems but to challenge the economic and political assumptions that had dominated Britain since the Second World War.
Her government introduced monetarist policies, privatised major industries, reduced the power of trade unions, encouraged home ownership and deregulated important parts of the economy. Whatever one’s political view of these policies, their impact was profound. Thatcher changed the relationship between the state, business and the individual.
Her record was not without substantial costs. The early 1980s recession produced very high unemployment and severe economic disruption, particularly in parts of northern England, Scotland and Wales. The poll tax was politically disastrous, and her increasingly uncompromising approach to Europe ultimately contributed to her downfall.
Nevertheless, Thatcher was an extraordinarily effective political leader. She won three general elections, dominated the Conservative Party and remained Prime Minister for more than eleven years.
Her international reputation was also strengthened by the Falklands War and her relationship with Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.
Overall, Thatcher deserves around 8.7/10. She was undoubtedly divisive, but few Prime Ministers have changed the direction of Britain so profoundly.
John Major: the underrated pragmatist
John Major inherited the premiership from Thatcher in 1990 and initially appeared to offer a very different style of Conservatism. He was pragmatic, relatively moderate and considerably less ideological than his predecessor.
His greatest economic humiliation was Black Wednesday in 1992, when Britain was forced out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. At the time, this appeared to destroy the government’s economic credibility. Yet the subsequent economic recovery was substantial. Inflation fell, unemployment declined, and Britain entered a prolonged period of economic growth.
Major’s most important achievement may have been Northern Ireland. His government helped establish the dialogue and political framework that ultimately contributed to the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. This achievement is sometimes overshadowed by the events of the Blair years.
His greatest weakness was political. The Conservative Party became consumed by internal arguments over Europe. Major struggled to maintain party discipline, while a series of scandals damaged the government’s reputation.
Nevertheless, Major’s record has aged surprisingly well. His caution, pragmatism and willingness to compromise may actually look more attractive in today’s highly polarised political environment.
Overall: around 7/10.
Tony Blair: the great political operator
Tony Blair was arguably the most successful politician of the entire period.
His achievement was remarkable. He took Labour from eighteen years in opposition to three consecutive general-election victories. The 1997 victory transformed British politics and established New Labour as the dominant political force of the following decade.
Blair’s domestic record was substantial. His government dramatically increased spending on the NHS and education, introduced Sure Start, expanded university participation, reduced child poverty and implemented major constitutional reforms. The creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, together with the Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information Act, changed the structure of British government.
His greatest achievement was probably the Northern Ireland peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. Blair demonstrated an unusual ability to bring together opposing political interests and maintain momentum during extremely difficult negotiations.
His political communication was exceptional. Blair understood the importance of creating a clear narrative around government, something Major’s Conservatives had struggled to do.
But Iraq fundamentally changed his legacy. His decision to support the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent failure to find the anticipated weapons of mass destruction, remains a major stain on his premiership.
Overall: approximately 8.5/10. Blair was an exceptional political leader whose domestic record was substantial, but Iraq prevents him from being regarded as an unqualified great.
Gordon Brown: the economic brain
Gordon Brown presents a fascinating contrast with Blair. Where Blair was an instinctive political communicator, Brown was primarily an economic thinker.
As Chancellor, he played a central role in New Labour’s economic policy and oversaw substantial investment in public services. The Blair-Brown governments also introduced policies that contributed to a significant reduction in child poverty.
Brown’s greatest test came after he became Prime Minister in 2007. Within a year, the global financial crisis had developed into the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Brown’s response was one of the strongest aspects of his premiership. His government helped recapitalise British banks, supported the financial system and pushed for coordinated international action. His role in the international response to the crisis has become increasingly respected with hindsight.
His weakness was political leadership. He struggled to communicate a distinctive vision for his premiership and had a difficult relationship with his own party.
Brown therefore remains something of a paradox: an exceptionally capable economic manager who was much less effective as a political leader.
Overall: around 7/10.
David Cameron: the modernising Conservative
David Cameron became Conservative leader promising to modernise the party. He succeeded politically to a remarkable degree.
He led the Conservatives into government in 2010, initially through coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and then won an outright Conservative majority in 2015.
His government presided over economic recovery following the financial crisis and implemented a range of social and constitutional reforms. His political communication was also highly effective.
But Cameron’s entire historical reputation is now intertwined with the 2016 EU referendum.
The referendum was intended partly to settle the Conservative Party’s long-running European argument. Instead, it produced Brexit. Cameron had misjudged the outcome and resigned immediately after the result.
This is a particularly important lesson in political leadership: a decision can be politically rational in the short term but extraordinarily consequential in the long term.
Cameron therefore remains difficult to categorise. He was undoubtedly an effective politician, but the consequences of his greatest political decision dominate his legacy.
Overall: around 7.1/10.
Theresa May: a capable politician trapped by Brexit
Theresa May inherited the premiership after Cameron’s resignation and faced arguably one of the most difficult political tasks in modern British history: delivering Brexit while maintaining Conservative Party unity.
Initially she appeared to have considerable political authority. However, her decision to call the 2017 general election proved disastrous. Rather than increasing her majority, she lost it.
From then onwards, Brexit dominated almost everything.
May was unable to secure parliamentary support for her withdrawal agreement, while the Conservative Party became increasingly divided between different versions of Brexit.
It would be unfair to describe May simply as an incompetent Prime Minister. She was experienced, serious and hardworking. But she lacked the political authority necessary to deliver her central objective.
Overall: around 5.5/10. Her premiership is perhaps best understood as a case of a reasonably capable politician placed in an almost impossible political situation, and then making one very consequential electoral mistake.
Boris Johnson: the brilliant campaigner
Boris Johnson was one of the most politically talented figures of the period.
His greatest achievement was the 2019 election, when he secured a huge Conservative majority and finally broke the parliamentary deadlock over Brexit.
His government also deserves credit for the UK’s vaccination programme and for taking a strong position against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine.
Yet Johnson’s political strengths were accompanied by serious weaknesses. His government suffered from poor discipline, internal controversy and ultimately the Partygate scandal.
The contrast between Johnson the campaigner and Johnson the administrator is striking.
He was exceptionally good at: winning elections, generating enthusiasm and communicating a simple political message.
He was considerably less successful at: maintaining discipline, controlling government and sustaining public trust.
Overall: around 6.7/10.
Liz Truss: the catastrophic experiment
Liz Truss’s premiership is unusual because there was simply so little time in which to judge it.
The problem was that what did happen was extraordinarily damaging.
Her government’s mini-budget produced a dramatic loss of confidence in financial markets, forcing the Bank of England to intervene and ultimately leading to the collapse of her economic strategy.
There were legitimate arguments behind some of her policies. The desire to increase economic growth through tax reform and supply-side measures was not inherently unreasonable.
But political leadership requires more than having potentially sensible objectives. It requires judgement, sequencing, communication and implementation. On those measures, the Truss government failed spectacularly.
Overall: approximately 3/10.
Rishi Sunak: the competent but unsuccessful Prime Minister
Rishi Sunak inherited a very difficult situation after Truss. His first task was therefore essentially to restore economic and political stability.
He was considerably more orthodox economically and succeeded in restoring some confidence after the turmoil of 2022. His international reputation was generally stronger than his domestic political reputation, particularly over Ukraine.
However, Sunak could not reverse the Conservative Party’s declining popularity.
His decision to call the 2024 general election ultimately produced a historic Conservative defeat.
Sunak therefore illustrates another distinction between competence and political success. He was arguably a more technically capable Prime Minister than his electoral performance suggested, but ultimately he failed to persuade the electorate that his government should continue.
Overall: approximately 6.3/10.
Keir Starmer: the missed opportunity
Keir Starmer entered Downing Street in 2024 with one of the largest parliamentary majorities in modern British history.
That gave him an extraordinary opportunity.
However, his government struggled to translate that electoral advantage into political momentum. Economic growth remained disappointing, communication was often unclear, and internal political tensions became increasingly visible.
The most important criticism is not necessarily that every individual policy was wrong. It is that the government appeared to struggle to establish a compelling answer to a basic question: What does Starmer’s Labour government actually stand for?
That is particularly damaging for a government that had received such a large mandate.
Overall: around 5/10. History may ultimately judge him more generously if some of his longer-term reforms succeed, but based on the complete premiership, the gap between the opportunity he inherited and what he achieved is significant.
Andy Burnham: too early to judge
Andy Burnham is the great unknown in this assessment.
Having become Prime Minister in July 2026, he has not had sufficient time to be judged on economic performance, public services, foreign policy or long-term reform.
What can be assessed is his political style.
Burnham has generally presented himself as a pragmatic politician interested in practical outcomes, regional development and rebuilding relationships between government, business, workers and communities.
That approach could prove particularly interesting after the increasingly polarised politics of the previous decade.
But ultimately: political style is not the same thing as successful government.
Burnham will need to demonstrate that his approach can produce economic growth, improve public services, maintain fiscal credibility and deliver meaningful reform.
For now, therefore:
Overall score: TBC.
Conclusion: What makes a great Prime Minister?
Looking back over nearly fifty years of British political history, an interesting pattern emerges.
The most successful Prime Ministers were not necessarily those who were the most popular, nor those who had the most attractive individual policies.
The truly successful leaders combined vision, political leadership, communication, judgement and delivery.
Thatcher had an extraordinarily clear vision of what she wanted Britain to become. Blair was exceptionally good at translating political ideas into electoral success and then government programmes. Both were therefore able to change the direction of the country.
Major and Brown demonstrate another lesson. Competence matters, even when it isn’t politically glamorous. Major’s handling of the economy after Black Wednesday and his contribution to Northern Ireland look considerably better in hindsight. Brown’s response to the financial crisis has similarly become more highly regarded.
Cameron and Johnson demonstrate the opposite danger. A Prime Minister can be an extremely effective politician while still making decisions with enormous long-term consequences. Cameron’s referendum and Johnson’s failure to maintain government discipline illustrate how political skill does not necessarily translate into sound long-term government.
The more recent Prime Ministers demonstrate another problem: governing in an era of extreme political fragmentation and instability is becoming increasingly difficult.
May was trapped by Brexit. Truss was overwhelmed by financial markets. Sunak inherited a deeply damaged Conservative Party. Starmer inherited a huge parliamentary majority but struggled to turn it into political authority.
The central lesson is therefore remarkably similar to the lesson we discussed earlier about project management.
A successful Prime Minister, much like a successful project manager, needs to be able to:
Set a clear objective → understand the stakeholders → build the team → manage risk → communicate constantly → make difficult decisions → adapt when circumstances change → and ultimately deliver.
On that basis, my overall judgement would be that Thatcher and Blair were the outstanding political leaders of the period; Major and Brown were better than their reputations suggest; Cameron was effective but made a historic miscalculation; Johnson was a superb politician but an inconsistent administrator; and the post-Brexit period has demonstrated just how difficult modern government has become.
And that makes Burnham’s premiership potentially very interesting. If he can combine his apparent pragmatism and communication skills with strong economic management and effective delivery, he could potentially become the first PM since Blair to combine political popularity, a clear governing narrative and sustained delivery. But at this stage, that is a possibility rather than a conclusion.
Recent Comments